Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Guido and the Commentariat

As a political blogger for the past three years, I am, unsurprisingly, a warm advocate of the political blogospere. I'm aware that some newspaper columnists might find this a bit threatening also, but the assault recently mounted by the leading blogger Guido Fawkes(in reality Paul Staines)seems way over the top:

When the great and the good assembled at the RSA last Wednesday... to bemoan their diminished status, they drew the battle-lines for a battle that should be joined and won for the blogosphere. The Commentariat desperately want to maintain their monopoly role as media gate-keepers, as the sub-edited filters of democracy and the monopoly producers of public commentary. Guido has said this before; in an age of near costless technological disintermediation "the news" is no longer what they say it is, we can make the news ourselves, unfiltered by the metropolitan media elite.

He went on to suggest Polly Toynbee was too vain or sensitive to read the critical online comments on her articles, even though many only read her to see her 'torn to shreds' by these very comments. Janet Daley was also singled out as the first member of this dated phalanx for critical attention. He promises to make a regular feature of taking columnists to task, revealing, with the help of other bloggers, he hopes, the triviality of the Commentariat's contributions to the political debate. Mmmm.

I'd make a number of observations on this:

1. We all have our own opinions on columnists. For example, I don't like Janet Daley or Simon Heffer much because they write for the rightwing press and I tend to dislike their views. Not so much their fault-they are not 'useless'- as a simple difference of opinion. I happen to like Polly Toynbee as someone who writes the the best researched articles on the left of centre and who is genuinely insightful of society and politics. It might be significant that even David Cameron thinks highly of her.

2. The best members of the commentariat study the political game very closely and can tell us a great deal about it. The likes of Andrew Rawnsley and Patrick Wintour move constantly in political circles and are very well informed as to what is happening behind the scenes, as the former's publications prove. Without their input we would lose a great deal and be much more ignorant of what is going on. They write foir the big papers and receive big salaries because they are mostly really good at their jobs.

3. Some columnists seem to be upset by critical comments. Maybe they shouldn't be, but I can understand their feelings. There is no real excuse for gratuitous rudeness or ad hominem attacks which ignore the argument. And we do have perhaps a little too much of that in the blogospere.

4. Does the political blogospere offer an adequate replacement for the commentariat? I doubt it very much. People like Guido often deal in superficial gossip, seldom offering real insights into the political scene. Furthermore, we bloggers are essentially one man bands, we lack the resources of the press or broadcasting or even most academic research programmes into our politics. Certainly the top bloggers-Dale, Guido, Montgomerie- are widely read but I suspect more for the jokes and the the personal attacks than the scant news or revealing apercus contained in their online columns. I should say that I read them regularly too, but for entertainment rather than illumination.

5. I often read the comments on these top blogs and find them often to be mindless cheerleading stuff, left by rightwing hooray henrys when they are not cliquey exchanges between people who seem to be old and rivalrous mates.

So, I'm sorry, I think much of the commentariat comprises good writing by seasoned obervers who help educate us after the manner of a mature democracy. Blogging has added a new dimension to political communication but it is still embryonic and nowhere near a substitute for what Guido attacks. People like the late Louis Heron, Peter Jenkins and Hugo Young made substantial contributions to the national debate and the likes of Rawnsley, Parris, Aaronovitch, Riddell, Simon Jenkins and Anatole Kaletsky to mention only a few, do something similar in the present day. Guido might have been annoyed at being attacked at that meeting but, I fear, it is he who takes himself too seriously and has come up with an over-reaction.

Nobody reads what you write - look at the zero comments to all your articles. They read Guido. Guido is a 'must read' for anyone interested in politics. Therefore he attracts comment, news tip-offs and is full of incisive comment and information. Bye bye for ever!

Skipper, I no longer support Labour and will be glad to see the back of them - however your blog is sensible and readable.

While I like Guido's blog the problem is that the comments he receives are from nutcases like the two above. I doubt whether anyone ever bothers to read the comments on his blog because its contributors are just bizarrely angry and have little or nothing interesting to say.

AnonThanks for that. Rather than inviting the two other commenters to crawl off and die, I would ask them, and anyone else to consider this question: to whom would they rather turn for an authoritative judgement on the political situation, Peter Riddell or Guido? It's a no brainer.

Great reaction really! The first two comments make your point for you. 'Guido' is a must read for anyone interested in gossip, not politics, in much the same way as newspaper gossip columns tend to draw more readers than the substantive articles - they're easy and undemanding. The real reason behind some of the leading bloggers' attacks on the commentariat is the straightforward green eye - they would really like to be part of it. Iain Dale, for example, who at least seeks to promote more reasonable and informative comments on his blog, certainly likes to advertise his 'dead tree press' columns.

Staines, of course, hovered near te flame of television media with two Newsnight appearances, both of which were embarassing.

About Me

I was born in the Welsh borderlands and grew up in Shrewsbury. Then to Aberystwyth University before working in the admin class of the civil service for a couple of unhappy years. Then got job at Manchester University which I loved. I became Director Extra-Mural Studies 1986-91 and then had a stroke while out jogging. Retired on medical grounds but still teach and write a good deal. Recently took up a part-time position in politics at Liverpool Hope University. Why Skipper? Legacy of captaining a post-graduate cricket team at university.